Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is
reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than
any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Who knew?

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going
from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is
the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently
vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better
or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately
precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the
2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008
Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath
of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current
president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including
including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account,
even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January
20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-

In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion,
according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget
that was agreed to last August.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP
controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works
for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will,
but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to
date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to
acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have
to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record
for stretching a dollar.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation
is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by
pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the
fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth
—and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.
But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the
individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it
was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone
believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their
history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder,
should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President
Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the
Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.contact Rick at thepolicypage@gmail.com

Twitter @rickungar
NOTE: Some of the comments to this piece have gotten well out of
control, involving threats and obscenity to other commenters and myself.
While I welcome and encourage comments from all points of view, obscene
remarks are removed and not tolerated. I’ll be happy to jump back into
the conversation and reply to some comments when those who are misusing
the forum settle down.